64Bit....not seeing a boost

[Roger Shealy]

I just rendered a 1:07 .m2t file to NTSC DV and 720 x 24.wmv in 32bit, then converted to 64vit and reran the test. Here are my results:

32bit to NTSC DV .avi = 1:47
64 = 1:41

32bit to 720x24 .wmv = 7:47
64 = 8:03


I'm a little underwhelmed at the moment. My system:

AMD 6400 @ 3.2 Dual Core
4GB Ram
Vista 64 Home
8600 GTS graphics
Lots of HDD's and free space (ESata 3)

[Perrone Ford]

What are the specs of the machine you're running on? I saw about a 30% increase on my laptop. I have both 8.0c and 8.1 installed side by side because there aren't many 64bit codecs out there right now.

[James Hooey]

One element that might make a 64bit system faster would be a multi core processor. A single processor utilizing the larger bitstream would see far less improvement compared to a multi core with each core using a larger bitstream getting almost expotential speed increase as each core is now benefiting from the increase.

Sorry I'm not a tech word savvy person and probably shouldn't use the word 'bitstream' but I think my logic would make sense. I will be moving to a 64bit OS soon simply to increase the amount of ram if nothing else. I expect some moderate gains in performance as well running 64bit OS on my AMD quad 2.2ghz.

[Jeff Harper]

James is correct, I believe. A quad core would give you significant gains in rendering speeds. Is your Vista tweaked out properly? I don't know if it would help, but it couldn't hurt.

I did notice an increase in speed with 64 bit OS, with 32 bit Vegas. My experience is that Vegas 8.0c is not ready for prime time anyway. I'm sure you are very disappointed with the lack of improvement, I know I was.

[Giroud Francois]

yes, by definition, getting more bits to crunch should just make a PC slower.
But getting more bits allows wider path for data, allows more memory, better handling of multiprocessor etc.., so if you take advantage of these feature you can see improvement.

[Roger Shealy]

I didn't specify it originally (added detail in first post) but my processor is a dual core running at 3.2 Ghz.

I'm going to try a few more tests, perhaps I need to reboot before the 64 test and I'll make sure I select my best drives and keep everything exactly consistent. If I don't see a significant gain, I'll probably go back to 32 to keep more options open for plug-ins and may even reload XP to see how that runs.

[Don Boosinger]

Roger

For what it’s worth, I’m using a dual boot system also. I use XP for all my normal stuff and XP-64 for Vegas.

Recently I went thru some hardware upgrades. CPU & Ram. I used the same video / audio file for testing. I don’t know how to equate the Intel & AMD cpu’s but perhaps you do.
Here’s what I found.

Running XP - 16 min 14 sec.
Running XP(64) - 14 min 17 sec.

Changed out the CPU from Core 2 Dual 2.0Gb to Core 2 Quad at 2.83GB
Changed out the memory from PC-6400 FSB 800 (3GB) to PC-8500 FSB 1066 (4GB)
Running XP - 12min 30 sec.
Running XP(64) - 9 min 07 sec.

XP 16 to 12 = 24 % +/-
XP(64) 14 to 9 = 35% +/-

Well I went back and did some more upgrades and a little tweaking and re-ran the render.
First I added another 4GB memory, so I now have 8GB of Corsair Dominator 1066 memory. Second I over clocked the CPU to 3.02 Ghz – (others have over clocked this cpu to 3.4Ghz) and Third I increased my paging files to maximum setting allowed.

Running XP-32 bit time is now 8min 59sec. Vegas 8.0c
Running XP-64 bit time is now 5min 21sec. Vegas 8.1

From original XP-32 16min 14 sec to 8min 59sec ….. not bad
From original XP-64 14min 17 sec to 5min 41sec …… not bad at all…..

Rendered file size was 298,806 KB +/-

[Roger Shealy]

Don,

What type of file were you rendering and to what format (i.e. 1080-60i.m2t rendered to NTSC-DV.avi). If I have a similar sized source file of the same format, I'll run a comparison.

Can you please send me your PC so I can validate your results :)

[Adam Letch]

as opposed to the $64 question,

does the 64bit mean that your preview improves as well as there's less bottlenecks? Does it utilise the cpu better meaning smooth real time preview?

thanks

Adam

[Don Boosinger]

Roger
I use a GL-2 and record to a FireStore –FS-4 (original)
The file type is an AVI- type 2. on the FS-4 menu.
The camera is set to standard 4:3 mode, using a 16:9 wide screen adapter from Century Optics. In all other respects it is a standard SD video. Once the video was recorded I simply moved the file to the hard disk and imported it to Vegas. No editing was preformed. Just the settings below were altered from default settings.

At the bottom you will notice a difference in Dynamic Ram and Rendering Threads.
I don’t know Vegas well enough to say what this means as far as performance goes. Perhaps someone else can commit on that.

My source file size is 1,489,498KB.

Windows XP (32 bit)
File, Properties, Project Properties: Video Tab

Template: NTSC DV Wide screen (720x480,29.970 fps)
Width: 720
Height: 480
Field Order : Lower field first
Pixel aspect ratio: 1.2121 (NTSC DV Wide screen)
Pixel format : 32-bit floating point
Composting gamma: 1.000(Linear)
Full-resolution rendering quality: Best
Motion blur type: Gussian
Deinterlace method: Blend fields

Audio Tab:
Master bus mode: Stereo
Number of stereo busses: 0
Sample rate (Hz): 44,1000
Bit depth: 16
Resample and stretch quality: Good

Ruler, Summary, and Audio CD tabs all default.

Options:
Preferences
Video Tab:
Changed Dynamic RAM Preview max (MB): to 1024
Changed Maximum number of rendering threads to :4

All other tabs I left set to default.

Windows XP (64 bit)

I just noticed that on the Options: Preferences: Video Tab: there is a difference
Dynamic RAM Preview max (MB): 350
Maximum number of rendering threads : 16

[Dave Haynie]

Ok... there seems to be a big confusion about 64-bit.

The 64-bit application, as with the 64-bit OS, allows you to fully run within a 64-bit environment. This means that logical addresses are 64-bits long (eg, no worries about addressing all the memory in your computer for the next years and, well, forever), and it means you get the x86-64 CPU model. That means some instructions that operate on 64-bit integers in a single cycle (versus 32-bit), and it means you get a better regular CPU and FPU model (more registers).

As far as "bringing things in 64-bit"... not really. Most hardware has been 64-bit since the dark ages (the mid 1990s) as far as the hardware is concerned, and more recently, it's effectively 128-bit... any DDR/DDR2/DDR3 system that works better with paired memory modules is grabbing at least 128-bits at a time. The CPU itself doesn't even really matter that much.

Code gets a bit more efficient in 64-bit mode: there are more CPU registers, more FPU registers, and you don't need the hacks they added for SSE/SSE2, to reuse the FPU registers. But the FPU was 64/80-bits in 32-bit land, it still is in 64-bit land. SSE is 64-bit and 128-bit, it's still that way in 64-bit land. When you read an HDV file into Vegas8.1, you're doing very much the same thing you did in Vegas 8.0c. When you're rendering, still much the same thing. If there are things a compiler can do better using 64-bit integers (unlikely), more CPU registers (definite), more FPU registers (very likely), you'll see a speedup.

But don't expect a huge one... as crappy as the x86 model is, the compilers have had so much effort, they're very good. So the additions to x86-64 compilers improve upon that, but it's more a 5% thing than a 50% thing.

[Roger Shealy]

Dave,

You may be right. I hoped 64 would bring a 30 - 50% improvement, but it hasn't. I'm going to go through the system and see if there is anything else I can tweak to make my dual core run faster, but I believe careful configuring of disk drives (using my ESATA's instead of external USB2's) yields more tanbible results that going from 32 to 64 bit.

[Jason McCormy]

This is interesting. I have 8.oc and 8.1 loaded on the same machine running Vista Business, and when I render stills into a wmv, I see about a 30 percent difference, and when I render HDV out into one of the intermediate codecs, I'm seeing at least a 50 percent increase. The still to wmv was 1:12 long and the HDV was about an hour long. It was a real time savor. It also seems to handle effects quite a bit quicker.

I just wish Sony would get off their duffs and bring 8.1 up to the same level as 8.0c, then take both of them into the realm of working all the time and no giving me a bug a day or so.

I know the 64 bit Vegas is new, and not all that it could be, but it seems that if the machine is up for it it can make a difference. Whether it justifies the added cost etc. though is another question entirely.

Oh, and I don't know a lot about Vegas or setup, I'm just going by the numbers in a machine that is already put together.

[Jeff Harper]

Roger, just to drive home the point about your processor's importance in speed, I just overclocked my Q6600 (quad core 2.4GHZ) to 3.3 and it is flying. What's more I'm using slow memory (DDR 667). Preview performance has improved somewhat, but the rendering has really taken off.

If your MB will accomodate the q6600, they are going for $169 now, which is obviously cheap. Of course if your MB won't accept the Quad core and/or if you don't have $169 to spend, then it won't do you any good of course. Hopefully you will at some point be able to upgrade.

[Roger Shealy]

Jeff, if its not too much to ask, could you take a short .m2t clip (1:00 or so; tell me the exact size and time) put it in your timeline and render it to 720x30P wmv and also to NTSC DV and tell me how long it takes for each render.

This will give me a feel of what kind of gain I could expect if I spend the $$$.